I doubt it. The big arguments come when we start talking about the solutions to this problem.
IMO, liberal democracies try to strike a balance between destroying incentive, at one extreme, and feudalism at the other.
There are plenty of folk (on this board, if not in this thread) who’ll argue that on the contrary there is no intrinsic problem with inequality or concentration of wealth.
There is great evidence that is decades old linking economic growth with wellbeing up to an average income level of around $15,000 to $20,000 dollars. This is the evidence upon which classical capitalism bases its “growth = good” philosophy and it still aplies for most of the world today. Unfortunately, it appears to no longer apply to the worlds richer countries who have already achieved that average standard of income. This dogma has spread around the entire world and has been accepted by most left wing and right wing governments. In contrast most of the evidence linking equality with wellbeing is relatively new (only a couple of decades old) and has only recently become so overwhelming and so clear. I predict it will take at least another fifty years to become as accepted academically. Whether income or wealth equality is a winning political message I somewhat doubt, most people are more taken in by aspirational messages than reality based ones. The American dream is what everyone wants to believe in and equality can easily appear, or be made to appear, to threaten that dream - even if it would make actually make everyone happier.
Okay, well I’ll get the party started. I’m Canadian thus already a filthy socialist in a society that still gives power to a monarchy, but I’m going to give it my best shot.
We’re already an egalitarian society. “All men are created equal.” It’s baked right into the basis of our nation. Given that we’re all created equal, if you can’t generate and accumulate your own wealth, there is something wrong with you. We have a sophisticated law and order system which prevents theft and homicide via punishment and rehabilitation. This system protects me. Religion is also vital to instill morals in society.
I probably did that all wrong.
2/10. Not nearly enough disdain for the filthy proletariat.
Gonna go with 0/10. Too well-written and coherently argued. Try hitting yourself in the head with a hammer before posting. Also, I doubt you personally will ever be able to convincingly mimic the strident yet plaintive tone of the true troll.
I would say mostly the first, but partly the latter. To a large degree, the growth of inequality in the US in the last 35 years or so is due to an increasingly weak bargaining position by the working class and middle class segments of the labor force. So that’s a systemic problem, but one with significant long term negative consequences. As Senor Gallant said, increasing inequality is a feedback loop that eventually destroys the standard of living of the lower tiers of the workforce. And as someone else said, when that happens, it hurts both the poor AND the rich.
I currently live in West LA and work in Century City and I can see this quite clearly. A lot of the people doing most of the work in West LA cannot afford to live here, and often live in quite nasty neighborhoods. Meanwhile the wealthy in West LA have their own source of unhappiness: a much greater need for security than in previous decades (private security patrols are common). This situation is not IMO sustainable for more than another decade or two at most.
Again, I’m from a nation that still gives ultimate power to a Queen based on some birth right, while at the same time paying into a universal healthcare system, so what the hell would I know?
It doesn’t count if you have to hold back laughter while writing it. :)
The other side of the argument would be Stalin’s Collectivization of farms or the Khmer Rouge’s Year Zero. Its all well and good to say concentration of wealth should be avoided. However, there is another extreme to be avoided.
Collectivism/Socialism isn’t the same as equality, its just one proposed answer to the problem. Japan manages to keep inquality in check with a very capitalist economy. Lunatic regimes like those of Stalin and Pol Pot were likely much more interested in personal power than the details of equality. Its also notable that dirt poor Soviet or Cambodian peasants would have probably had more to gain from economc growth than equality, as the evidence clearly shows. Only once they had reached a certain standard of living would there be significantly more to gain from equality than there was from growth.
We’re not. We all have the same rights, but skills, talents, intelligence, and dedication are not spread evenly across the board. Not to mention the millions of different economic, social, and political situations providing various advantages and disadvantages to individuals.
Nice circular logic. The argument is that inequality is the cause of these problems. This is what Gallant pointed out on the previous page. I guess we have ourselves a real chicken-egg situation.
Isn’t it the growth of multinationalism, more than inequality in and of itself? In the past decades the inequality already in the system (who have trust funds, who goes to Yale, Wall Street, NY law firms ect.) catapults the winners into positions of increasing wealth while the losers (those without trust funds, who don’t go to Yale, Wall Street, or NY law firms) are increasingly marginalized as their main purpose economically becomes consumption rather than production. There are still some technical production jobs in the US of course.
The declining middle class is a symptom of this, as much as a cause, and is not easily corrected simply by increasing bargaining power.
It can hardly be a solely a symptom of multinationalism when some first world countries like Japan and Sweden manage to keep inequality down and others like the UK and the US don’t.
Yeah, I don’t know if it has anything to do with inequality, but the culture of workers rights in the US is the weakest is has been in decades. But then again, as Dan mentioned above, look at Japan. They don’t exactly have the most organized workforce, but maybe they are an outlier.
Japan and, to a certain extent, Sweden, are export economies; ie, the place to be in the global multinational world.
Last weekly trade balance figures from The Economist (latest 12 months):
US -518.8b
UK -129.9b
Spain -70.4b
France -59.5b
Greece -43.4b
Canada -2.5b
Sweden +10.6b
Denmark +12.8b
Belgium +18.2b
Netherlands +47.0b
Norway +54.3bn
Japan +55.1b
Germany +193.1b
Can we blame the poor people for their own doing? they need to learn to save money/invest better and get a better edumacation!!!
You are working in my hood, must be one of them suit wearing, nice shoes bankers, I seen your kind giving me odd looks when I go to the food court in my flip-flops and t-shirt.
I think you just hit upon the reason why economic inequality is bad. It’s the resentment and the fear of that resentment.
Totally, pure jealousy from them, wish they can wear flipflop and t-shirt to their job.